I don't think this is unreasonable. For example, if every single game from every league/tourney reported their results to an app like Game on Mobile, then a system could store and aggregate this data set. If we did not keep individual player stats, then the database size would stay relatively small. It's actually a fairly simple problem to solve technologically, especially considering all leagues and some tourneys already store their results electronically somewhere. Politics and buy-in... that's a different story

The harder questions are developing the algorithm to sort and adjust players into appropriate rankings. But if you fed enough data over a long enough period of time, then your ranking system would get continuously better.

But you are basing it on everyone keeping their own stats truthfully and accurately. People could easily manipulate stats to work to their advantage

But you are basing it on everyone keeping their own stats truthfully and accurately. People could easily manipulate stats to work to their advantage

In my example, I only suggested that league directors report the final scores of games. I understand that this won't be as accurate as having individual stats, but I don't think that's remotely realistic.

Originally Posted by shmoo

Yes, they manage a small percentage of players in their own organization pretty well. SPN and NSA cater more to the higher volume of D and E players I'd say.

Org's don't want to share info, on the table anyway. Phone calls between local convenors happen, but not final say to what an Org goes with.

I think that the managing of SS has a certain element of manual work involved with managing rosters. The challenge for having something that works for all levels of play is scalability.

__________________When nothing seems to help, I go and look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before.

I believe the underlying theme of the post, and something I really believe in...is that you can have competitive games with a mix of players with history from different divisions.

It may be time to look for more ways to get teams on the field, rather than stick to the old school way of thinking that has put limits on who you could play with, and thereby preventing teams from playing.

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that a team with 10 C players can compete with a team with 3 A players, 3 E players and 4 C players.

We should also all agree that all B players are not equal, and that it's entirely possible that many B players could show up at a D tournament and completely blend in.

It's not hard to track results from various rosters and use them to build reasonable division parity moving forward. Over time, it would be easy to determine which A players made a measurable difference to a team, and which ones didn't.

I already have all the framework in place. After tracking and putting a value on every super series game in the last three years, I can predict with pretty high accuracy which games will be close and which ones won't.

Adding roster information to the mix will only make that more accurate, and would certainly allow me to assign a value to any mixture of players who want to form a team.

You use facts to establish a level playing field for a variety of different rosters, you play the games, then you adjust accordingly for next time.
It gets better and better as you go along.

The bottom line though, is that you're now opening up more possibilities for people to play, rather than finding reasons why they can't.

Will any or all organizations get on board and adopt it? Who knows? But if someone provided that option to their tournaments, would you pick them over the ones who didn't?

__________________
Greatest line in SFO history:

"Without Teej our guys were able to focus on ball and not being sold gear by a trunker".

I believe the underlying theme of the post, and something I really believe in...is that you can have competitive games with a mix of players with history from different divisions.

It may be time to look for more ways to get teams on the field, rather than stick to the old school way of thinking that has put limits on who you could play with, and thereby preventing teams from playing.

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that a team with 10 C players can compete with a team with 3 A players, 3 E players and 4 C players.

We should also all agree that all B players are not equal, and that it's entirely possible that many B players could show up at a D tournament and completely blend in.

It's not hard to track results from various rosters and use them to build reasonable division parity moving forward. Over time, it would be easy to determine which A players made a measurable difference to a team, and which ones didn't.

I already have all the framework in place. After tracking and putting a value on every super series game in the last three years, I can predict with pretty high accuracy which games will be close and which ones won't.

Adding roster information to the mix will only make that more accurate, and would certainly allow me to assign a value to any mixture of players who want to form a team.

You use facts to establish a level playing field for a variety of different rosters, you play the games, then you adjust accordingly for next time.
It gets better and better as you go along.

The bottom line though, is that you're now opening up more possibilities for people to play, rather than finding reasons why they can't.

Will any or all organizations get on board and adopt it? Who knows? But if someone provided that option to their tournaments, would you pick them over the ones who didn't?

I think it's safe to say that most ppl will support the ideas and values you are putting forward. But where you are gonna win people over is how clear your execution plan is for this, and how much it will cost associations and league/tourney directors to implement it (both initial and ongoing costs).

If you tell everyone that you can do everything you listed AND that it wont cost anyone a penny or any time, then I'm sure it gets implemented this year. But I doubt that's the case.

__________________When nothing seems to help, I go and look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before.

So instead of players arguing and debating their “letter rating”, they’re now arguing and debating their “number rating”???

Not to mention, you’re now giving more opportunities for “A/5 & B/4 players” to pump balls at “D/2 & E/1 players”!!!

For local tournaments that mean nothing, ok sure do what you want. But when it comes to provincial/national qualifiers, what division are you really in if you have 2-10’s, 5-2’s, 1-4 and 4-1’s etc etc etc

I think it's safe to say that most ppl will support the ideas and values you are putting forward. But where you are gonna win people over is how clear your execution plan is for this, and how much it will cost associations and league/tourney directors to implement it (both initial and ongoing costs).

If you tell everyone that you can do everything you listed AND that it wont cost anyone a penny or any time, then I'm sure it gets implemented this year. But I doubt that's the case.

It was about 15 years ago, that I sat in the SPN office and pitched this idea.
I asked for $12 per roster, with the thought that everything I've ever wanted done well, cost me at least something.

The two concerns I remember squashing it were;
-the worry that the other organization would use it
-players wouldn't pay the ~$1.00 each for it.

At this point in the game, I actually just want to see this concept take off.
I'd be willing to start an independent roster-checking service for $5.00 per team.

Organizations, or even just individual tournaments from any organization, would have teams send me their rosters electronically ahead of time to have them checked for competitive balance.

My only asks would be;
1) Stick to putting the teams in the divisions we determine, and enforce any roster changes we determine needed
2) Discipline and report any team using illegal non-roster players
3) Send me the scores afterwards

For tournaments of 50 teams or more, I'd even send a rep to their tournament to do random I.D. checks and collect all the scores ourselves.

These tournaments could then promote themselves as "Ranked" or "Tracked" to let their potential customers know that they are serious about checking rosters and providing their teams with the best effort to keep the divisions fair.

Would you choose a "ranked" tournament over an unchecked one for your team even if it cost each of you about 50 cents more?

I know I would.

__________________
Greatest line in SFO history:

"Without Teej our guys were able to focus on ball and not being sold gear by a trunker".

So instead of players arguing and debating their “letter rating”, they’re now arguing and debating their “number rating”???

Not to mention, you’re now giving more opportunities for “A/5 & B/4 players” to pump balls at “D/2 & E/1 players”!!!

For local tournaments that mean nothing, ok sure do what you want. But when it comes to provincial/national qualifiers, what division are you really in if you have 2-10’s, 5-2’s, 1-4 and 4-1’s etc etc etc

The thing is, you remove the basis for debate.

A guy plays in a B tourney and beats teams W, X, and Y by 4 runs each then loses to team Z by 8.

His number is based on those results. The more he plays, the more roster combinations he's a part of... the more accurate his number becomes. Since it's based on actual results, there's no debate.

The most frequently raised concern with mixed level rosters is safety. I've played and umped for 27 years and have seen thousands of examples of A players playing with REC players....even seen Men's A players hitting on a field with Ladies REC players fielding. I can honestly say I've never seen a single person injured from this scenario. I don't think it's the epidemic some people are making it out to be.

That said, at all levels, I think it goes without saying that the pitcher needs to be wearing protection nowadays...but that goes for A players playing against other A players as well.

The mixed roster system is a "play and see" system. I'm personally ranked B, but anyone who knows me, knows that if I showed up to play D or E, no one would think I stand out or make a huge difference.

So we put these different combinations of rosters together and we see how that combination does. Depending on how they compete, we adjust accordingly and get better and better at placing everyone next time.

Obviously any team can play better or worse than what their "on paper" number is, but using what we know to be fair to everyone, then playing to see who does well that particular weekend is all we can ask for.

__________________
Greatest line in SFO history:

"Without Teej our guys were able to focus on ball and not being sold gear by a trunker".